Do you have a photographic ethic?

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>My questions were somewhat rhetorical, but I do appreciate how you feel about them. Your photo, even after the moment of meeting of Denis and his sister, and the complicity of the two, is of high quality. It has presence and meaning, which is what I also feel is most important. As for the hospital scene, and without of course the advantage of being there to appreciate it fully, I feel you did very much the right thing. The moment was highly special to those involved and you respected that. You let it flow and the importance of it was not obstructed by a camera motor whir or mirrror slap. Yes, it would have been nice to have an almost imperceptible Cartier-Bresson record of the moment, but that was obviously not possible with your supposed DSLR equipment and you knew it. But further to that, I think it was much much better to have the dignity of the moment unspoiled for those involved, and a fine memory which is equal to any personal photo.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Luis,</p>

<p>Thanks for the cultural precision (I feel more American now). It is sad that the free enterprise system has many honest dealers and thinkers who are in complete disagreement with six year old female sexualisation yet also those ready to find that practice "ethically acceptable" and reject the opinions of all who are not in agreement with them. Where or how did such divergence in ethics originate?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Arthur</strong>, unfortunately, ethics often cease where profits begin.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>I enjoyed your two stories; I think many of us have experienced similar situations.</p>

<p>BUT ... I don't think the ethics of not shooting was particurly about photography. I think it was about not disturbing something that needed not to be disturbed. You would not have talked on your cell-phone or done the cha-cha or stood on your head, either. It would have been just as wrong to point a film-less (memory card-less) camera without shooting or even to go through the motions with no camera at all. On the other hand, if you could have some sort of magical tiny unobtrusive head-cam hidden in your hat, I think you might have been perfectly happy to photograph the two situations. In other words, it wasn't making of photographs but the distracting activity (of any kind) that was wrong in those situations. Photographing is part of the guilty disturbing-activity set, but it is only one of many such types of behavior.</p>

<p>[<em>The following (below) is unrelated to my comment above</em>.]</p>

<p>This morning, I've thinking about whether the following idea holds up against objections:</p>

<p>It is unethical (not just stupid) to photograph things about which you have no judgement/feelings. A photograph is a documentation; a (point of) view that propogates (possible) meanings. If I photograph what appears to be a nice man and I show him as a nice man -- and he turns out to be Pol Pot or your favorite really bad person, I have generated something that is, if not a lie, then at least an obfuscation.</p>

<p>If I photograph a mechanical device without knowing whether it is a weapon or a solar-power generator, I am derelict in my duty, in my responsibility at some minimal level ("this is ...") that I think I assume by taking up a camera and making pictures.</p>

<p>A person who knows about hunting can photograph it in an accurately communicative way -- either pro or con -- but only if/when he knows enough about the activity to have reached a reasonably well-informed judgement (as Matt has done in his description at the top of this thread).</p>

<p>Generating misinformation under the excuse of ignorance is not just stupid or lazy. I think it crosses into ethics (is unethical). But I'm still thinking about it ...</p>

[felixg]

<p>Arthur P:</p>

<blockquote>“When you happen to be in a position where you can help, I think you are morally<br />obligated to do that. The judgement of where and how is perhaps not always<br />clear, but at what point do you decide to stow the camera and help? At what<br />point does your humanity and ethics become more important than getting the<br />image?”</blockquote>

<p>I absolutely agree with the first sentence; and the answer to the question in the last is (for me, personally) "always".<br /><br />Answering the second sentence is much harder.<br /><br />For example, faced (in the late 70s and early 80s) with similar conditions and circumstances to those which depressed Kevin Carter, it seemed self evident that I should stow the camera and help. But ... when I did so, I often found that I was just getting in the way of those (medically, nutritionally, or otherwise trained) who could deliver the same help much more effectively.<br>

Carrying water or bandages so that an aid worker could deploy her/his own skills without distraction was OK; but anything more was simply a nuisance which harmed those I wanted to help.<br>

The help which was required of me, to justify my occupying space and consuming resources, was that I take the photograph so that someone could use it to communicate the need for more outside support of the help which those with the necessary expertise were delivering; if I didn't do that, I could help most effectively by just going away.<br /><br />Once I accepted the reality of my actual value, I photographed when asked and carried bedpans when asked. This isn't, of course, the way to be a great photographer... :-)<br /><br />The more real choice, in practice, was whether to take and/or pass out a photograph or not. Do I respect the dying person's strong personal and cultural wish NOT to be photographed, or "use" them for (what I or the aid organisation see as) the greater good?</p>

[felixg]

<p>Julie H:<br>

I have much sympathy for your devil's advocate. I agree with almost all of what s/he has to say, with only a few small caveats.<br>

One of the caveats concerns this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“Shooting the disadvantaged not only shows their shame, it shows yours. I think viewers of such pictures don't like them because of *both* shames and possibly even more so the shame of the photographer because it shames them too.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It seems to me that there is only one shame here, not two. There is no shame to being disadvantaged; the shame attaches entirely to those who view disadvantage and choose to do (not "do"; "choose to do", as with the photographer addressed by your devil) nothing.<br>

Agreeing with you(r devil), sadly, doesn't leave me in a very good light. I eventually resolved my ethical dilemma by walking away from it and taking my camera with me ... a functional equivalent, I suppose, of Carter's suicide (Mike Dixon is right in his notes on the larger view of that suicide, which only emphasises the ethical strain behind it) but without the courage to follow through ... which makes the shame firmly my own. But your devil is, in all material ways, still (IMO) right.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Julie pondered: "</strong>It is unethical (not just stupid) to photograph things about which you have no judgement/feelings. A photograph is a documentation; a (point of) view that propogates (possible) meanings.</p>

<p>So strict! What about exploration? In photography, it's always this, not that. <em>Something (and it can be ridiculously banal) </em>is attracting even the most apparently mindless photographer to whatever ends up in the frame. Sometimes one is chasing tenuous, almost non-existent hoodoos.</p>

<p><strong>JH- "</strong> If I photograph what appears to be a nice man and I show him as a nice man -- and he turns out to be Pol Pot or your favorite really bad person, I have generated something that is, if not a lie, then at least an obfuscation."</p>

<p>It is neither lie nor obfuscation, simply another, legitimate, aspect of a man at a particular moment, from a particular viewpoint, from a particular observer.</p>

<p>My mental picture of Dr. Goebbels is the death-ray stare of consuming hatred expertly photographed by Eisenstadt. However, it is incomplete. No single photograph, no matter who the photographer is, can encapsulate a person or an entire life. It can be a synopsis, symbolic, or an insightful skim of its salient aspects. I want a picture of Dr. G as a young boy, a teenager full of dreams and aspirations, on his wedding day (was he married?), holding his first-born, engaged in heinous acts, etc. None of them are misinformation. Even the propaganda portraits serve to tell us a lot about the times and the image they desired to project.</p>

<p>[imagine if everyone applied Julie's ethic to having children (never minding that most of us are "oops" babies). Will it be a Jesus, Hitler, Homer Simpson, or....a photographer?]<br>

<strong>JH - "</strong>If I photograph a mechanical device without knowing whether it is a weapon or a solar-power generator, I am derelict in my duty, in my responsibility at some minimal level ("this is ...") that I think I assume by taking up a camera and making pictures."</p>

<p>So if you see a UFO, since you have no idea what it is, you don't pick up your camera?</p>

<p><strong>JH - "</strong>A person who knows about hunting can photograph it in an accurately communicative way -- either pro or con -- but only if/when he knows enough about the activity to have reached a reasonably well-informed judgement (as Matt has done in his description at the top of this thread)."</p>

<p>A person who's never been hunting but empathizes and gets absorbed in what's going on might do a perfectly good series on hunting. There are nuances a hunter may bring to the pictures, but also there are things that participants are desensitized to, precisely by their experiences.</p>

<p><strong>JH put down the trident & cracked the whip thusly -"</strong>Generating misinformation under the excuse of ignorance is not just stupid or lazy. I think it crosses into ethics (is unethical). But I'm still thinking about it ..."</p>

<p>Unethical, ignorant, stupid <em>and</em> lazy? Can I get that on stone tablets? :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"It is unethical (not just stupid) to photograph things about which you have no judgement/feelings. A photograph is a documentation; a (point of) view that propogates (possible) meanings. If I photograph what appears to be a nice man and I show him as a nice man -- and he turns out to be Pol Pot or your favorite really bad person, I have generated something that is, if not a lie, then at least an obfuscation.<br /> If I photograph a mechanical device without knowing whether it is a weapon or a solar-power generator, I am derelict in my duty, in my responsibility at some minimal level ("this is ...") that I think I assume by taking up a camera and making pictures." (Julie)</p>

<p><strong>Julie: </strong> I see a conflict in your first statement. Yes, if you have no feelings or judgement about what you are photographing, the result will be ruled by chance. It will be a fine photograph by chance and not by planning (as a result of judgement/feelings), which may happen occasionally, but it will probably not result in very much if you are not involved in the making of the image. Having said that, I believe what you are in fact saying is that you are exercising an artistic approach in making the photograph, but the object (persons, animals or things) is not inciting any particular feelings from you other than the abstract impression of composition, texture, form, etc. I see neither situation as being particulaly unethical. What is unethical is to do something that is against your code of values; you cannot be blamed or have remorse for going against that code if you are not able to have a judgement or feeling about the object photographed.</p>

<p>I think the mechanical device question is even less tied to that of an ethical question. There may be some slippage in your first example, between ethical and unethical (although I personally don't see much), but photographing a mechanical object is usually done because we are intrigued about its form or other pictorial qualities. If you are unaware of its relationship to other mechanical objects and to humanity you are not crossing over from ethical behaviour to unethical. It is a non-issue.</p>

<p>On the other hand, when you are aware of the relationship betwen the object and its use it is a wholly different matter. The entrance or interior of a concentration camp in Poland, the apparel of an SS trooper, remnants of those killed in a massacre in Rwanda, objects left on the road after a fatal car accident, are but a few of the scenes that I would have trouble reconciling with the creation of a photograph, unless I had researched it thoroughly (when possible) and was completely sure of the message my photographs might present. Even in the unlikely case that my intent was not related to what the objects mean, their symbolism, but somehow only artistic (in the sense of the visional indications presented by the image), I would decide to look elsewhere, realising the great chance of misrepresenting the objects.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Luis and Arthur,</p>

<p>You are both right and in very helpful ways. I still feel like there's a kernel of truth in what I posted but I can't seem to sort it out of all the obvious exceptions. Some sort of involuntary-man-slaughter-ish misbehavior. Not up there with premeditated murder but not entirely innocent either.</p>

<p>A slight variation if I can link to an external post (one on my blog) is tourist photography. In the linked post, which shows elderly American women (and a man) photographing African toddlers, I end up thinking that the affection and goodwill of the tourists makes it okay for them to photograph what they really know nothing about. Do you agree?<br>

<a href="http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/heres-looking-at-you/">http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/heres-looking-at-you/</a><br>

I did a follow-up on a different kind of photography of African children by Americans here:<br>

<a href="http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/budding-artists/">http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/budding-artists/</a></p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>". . . </em><em>if you could have some sort of magical tiny unobtrusive head-cam hidden in your hat, I think you might have been perfectly happy to photograph the two situations."</em> <strong>--Julie</strong></p>

<p><strong>Julie</strong>, my ethics go beyond what I can get away with. Though I don't believe in a god or gods, I do believe in some sort of greater picture. No, you've judged me wrong. From a standpoint of ethics, I generally won't do in secret or silently what I wouldn't do up front. The disturbing would take place on a different plane from the click of the shutter, the snap of the mirror, and the gesture of my arm.</p>

<p>Also remember that my not photographing wasn't just about the noise or about not disturbing others. It was about my wanting to be present and not wanting something between me and the moment. That something doesn't have to be my 30D with its big zoom lens. It's about my consciousness and my attention.</p>

<p>Had I photographed those two events, I would have had the reminders of those events in the form of photographs. Those photographs would be inescapable. I said above that I and others would love to have the picture of Harold and my dad. Others might never know but I always would. I would love to have the picture I <em>could have</em> taken, but I wouldn't love to have the picture I <em>wasn't able to</em> take. Only if I had felt cleanly about taking it at the time would I want the photo as a remembrance. Having not felt cleanly about it, the photograph would act more as a reminder of my own distraction than anything else.</p>

<p>This story doesn't have near the emotion for me that the other two do: I no longer show <a href="../photo/5553020">THIS</a> photo. (I keep it in a hidden folder.) I didn't "disturb" the subject. He never knew his picture was taken. It's the kind of photo I was taking early on in my days of shooting seriously. I'll always have a fondness for the photo but it will always bother me too, as a reminder of the kind of stealth shooting I used to do. I was probably positioned behind a tree on the sidewalk when I took this. I'd come away from a day of shooting feeling as if I'd violated others (somewhat sublimated feelings, but genuine nevertheless) and also feeling quite isolated myself, as if I was the onlooker watching and crouching while everyone else was participating. The guy never knew what hit him, but something happened that involved him. He doesn't have to know or even have to suffer consciously from my actions. The event is still out there in the universe. I've grown, and shoot differently now. I have a fondness for it but don't think it's a good photo. All that was lacking for me in the shooting of it, I believe, shows <em>in the photo</em> itself. It's a <em>looking at</em> or even a <em>looking away</em>, not a <em>seeing</em>.</p>

[felixg]

<p>Julie H on a linked post:<br>

“...elderly American women (and a man) photographing African toddlers ... the affection and goodwill of the tourists makes it okay for them to photograph what they really know nothing about. Do you agree?”<br>

I've thought a lot about that post, since you first put it up.<br>

As I said at the time, the fact that they are American is irrelevant ... the fact that they are outsiders may or may not be.<br>

My current feeling are ... I see nothing inherently ethical or unethical about them taking photographs. As Luis G says, photography is often (in my case, at least, <em>usually</em>) exploration of something wholly or partially unknown. The ethical aspect arises within each of those tourists, not in the third party observer. I have to admit that this particular third party observer feels a sense of outrage and anger ... but that's <em>my</em> problem, <em>my</em> shortcoming, not theirs, and for me to deal with; I can't defend it.<br>

[somebody, a long way above this, said that they will never pay for taking such a photograph. Oh yes: Leslie Cheung. I understand and respect his ethical viewpoint on that, but can't entirely share it in these circumstances − whichever way I decide, my wider "human" ethical assessment overrides any "photographic" one.]<br>

If I have an defensible ethical question about what those tourists in your are doing, it is to do with objectivisation of human individuals ... something which happens everywhere but is particularly promoted by tourism (not just American tourism in Africa; any tourism anywhere − British tourism in the US, for example, or Ethiopian tourism in Europe or the US, or any tourism at all; tourism almost <em><strong>is</strong></em> objectivisation of the toured by the tourer). Photography always has a tendency to objectify, and in tourism sees this aspect come very prominently to the fore.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Felix,</p>

<p>Thanks and I think I agree with you. I seem to want to agree with everybody this morning but I really DO agree. I'm wobbling back and forth (I like wobbling back and forth). Thanks for persisting in filling out and explaining your point(s) of view.</p>

<p>[Am still digesting the previous posts including Fred's most recent -- which I also agree with :) ]</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Julie... to make your wobbling worse, a thought that just popped up in my head reading Luis' answer on your older pondering, specifically on an accidental picture that would show Pol Pot as a normal, possibly attractive, human being.<br>

When the movie 'Der Untergang' was released there were people angry that Hitler was being displayed as a relatively normal human being. They felt he should be shown as the monster he was. Personally (and I think most viewers) found the 'human touch' more frightening. A normal human and a monster at the same time... What does that say about us? Doesn't that send a much stronger and deeper message?<br>

So, yes, a picture that would show Stalin as a loving grandfather, wouldn't that make a stronger picture? None of us is thát far away from being like any of those types - circumstance, oppurtunity and situation. A bad choice is easily made.<br>

<em>(No, I do not believe humankind is bad by default, though it may seem so by now) </em></p>

<p>Felix,<br>

Thanks for the shared experiences. I find real world choices and decisions made help a lot in understanding the real issues in ethics.<br>

One sentence that intrigues me:<em> Photography always has a tendency to objectify.</em><br>

In what sense? Isn't that a (potentially wrong) assumption of the viewer?</p>

<p>Fred, while I think the discussion is absolutely fine, partially I want to rewind to your topic start. Just to be sure I understand properly: adhering to certain ethics is ultimately a personal choice, but do you see/search for a photography-wide ethical viewpoint, or the personal 'boundaries' of persons? Aren't the last just moral values, and more a question "how far are you willing to go to get a photo"?<br>

<em>(sorry if this sounds deconstructive/nullifying, it's not meant as such - it's more to ensure I'm not missing a point here)</em></p>

[luis_g]

<p>The part that gets to me regarding the tourists photographing the rickety kids for me is that they're <em>all </em>taking the same picture. Not one kneels down, or adopts a different perspective, nothing. Monkey see, monkey do. It's as if the tourists are mass-produced clones.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Wouter</strong>, I don't take your questions as nullifying in any way. I have personal boundaries and personal <em>ethical</em> boundaries. My personal boundaries are that I don't climb mountains to get shots, I don't dive to do underwater photography (because I'm chicken, not because I don't like them), I avoid shots of sunsets at the beach. There's nothing ethical about those decisions and they could change as I do.</p>

<p>I've described my own ethical boundaries in several stories. Those are not about just how far I will go. They are about my ethics and my ethics regarding making photographs.</p>

<p>As for a photography-wide ethical viewpoint, I'm not trying to establish one but my original question left open the door for those who may. I was curious whether people have personal ethical approaches to their photographs and whether they see a more community-wide standard.</p>

<p>Despite the fact that I'm not comfortable with determining the ethics of others when it comes to photographing, I do make my own judgments on what or how others shoot as the cases arise. I mostly keep them to myself.</p>

<p>If someone commits what society considers an unethical act worthy of being called a crime in the process of making a photo, I would likely judge that severely and punish the person accordingly. I'd punish people who abuse children by photographing them or someone committing a robbery in the process of photographing. Taking a picture of a robbery, of course, would likely be something different.</p>

<p><em>[<strong>Warning:</strong> some may be offended by these examples.]</em> I give a lot of leeway and have to have a lot of information before I jump to ethical conclusions about photographs. Many judge <a href="http://www.photoeye.com/auctions/img/1534/Large_H1000xW950.jpg">Jock Sturges</a> and <a href="http://www.4debatetalk.com/klara_and_edda_belly_dancing.jpg">Nan Goldin</a> harshly for these photos. I don't. I respect their work and like much of it (not all of it). I accept that it could be seen as challenging morés, but in these cases I think that's a good thing. I've read a fair amount about both photographers and how they approach their shoots and I have no problem with their methods or their results, though they do touch various nerves in me as well as others.</p>

<p>I judge harshly the Bush Administration for not allowing photos of caskets returning from war. I appreciate Obama's reversal of that form of censorship and denial. He's made it contingent on a given family's consent, which I have mixed feelings about. On the one hand, the family deserves the utmost privacy and respect. On the other hand, a greater good might be served even if the family's consent couldn't be obtained. There would be compelling arguments on both sides here.</p>

<p>Pretty much any rule of thumb I could think of will have exceptions and might change as my own situation, needs, and opportunities change. Though I do have a predilection against photographing homeless people, for example, I recognize many significant photos of homeless people and, given the right circumstances and access, I could certainly see myself photographing them. So even my generally applied ethics to myself or to others are rarely if ever universalized or immortalized.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Understand - for me, I just did/do not make the distinction between the personal boundaries and personal ethical boundaries. They're all pictures I just cannot make in practise. Where I do make the distinction, I avoid the use of the word 'ethics', but rather go with judgement, moral values... a bit more flexible and personal terms (at least in my view) - that sparked the question. I guess we interpret the word 'ethics' different, while being mostly in agreement on what has been said.</p>

<p>A note on the photography wide ethics. A nature organisation tried to introduce a guideline for nature photographers in the Netherlands. Given the explosive rise in interest, many nature areas were getting damaged by the increased hordes of photographers. The suggested rules were tear-jerking obvious (respect nature, leave animals alone, do not damage plants/trees/animals to get your photo etc.). In my view, it didn't help and will not help. Those who understand those guidelines, already knew. Those who don't either will not learn, or will not get exposed to the publication since it was mainly presented in media circling around nature-lovers.... A good initiative, but a priest preaching a church full of believers.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred-</p>

<p>People are often shocked by nudity. The context is important, not the fact of nudity. Some are shocked at the sight of a baby upon delivery, covered in fluid and attached still by an umbilical cord. I find that amazing. These are however questions of taste and not ethics, in my mind. Ethics comes into it in regard to the context of the image (like Sturges' mother and child hanging laundry which I think many would accept as normal) if our values dictate that until children are old enough to understand context and moral values and guidelines (ethics) it is best not to confront them with nudity images or those of violence. Personal ethics varies and amongst cultures as well, of course. Bathing suits are not ethical in Saudi Arabia, but are so in the western world. Miltary caskets from Afghanistan are shown in Canada only if the family does not deny that otherwise (after the sacrifice of their child, I believe that it is both ethical and is reasonable to accept that request).</p>

<p>The question of ethics, like the question of what one intends to do with one's life, are society influenced but ultimately between the person and his or her conscience. I have respect for others whose ethics may be somewhat different from mine and even more respect for those who are consistent in their application, whatever the exact nature of those ethics may be.</p>

<p>By the way, some of the most meaningful images of Sturges were taken with an 8x10 camera in Irish schools, some 5 or 10 years ago. He has a great complicity with young people. I wish I could access them easily, but if you are interested in his work I am sure Irish and Jock Sturges might reveal them.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Arthur</strong>, thanks. I've seen quite a bit of Jock's work over the years, both in person and in books.</p>

<p>On the issues you just addressed, I mostly disagree. I don't, and I don't think most people who react, see these examples as matters of taste. Many who find them morally objectionable would and have stated that the Sturges photos are well done and "beautiful." They are well within most people's level of taste. Most people object to them on ethical grounds. Either they think nudity is wrong altogether or they think photographing a nude child (other, perhaps, than in a bubble bath) is wrong, not distasteful. In reading many articles on reactions to Goldin's photo, it was not about liking the photo, the colors, the composition, etc. It was about a young girl's vagina staring the viewer in the face while she was staring up between the legs of a dancing partner clad in panties. Though I don't find these photos unethical, it is hard for me to imagine divorcing them from significant ethical considerations and limiting the considerations to ones of taste. Limiting it to taste would make it much lesser art in my eyes. I think dealing with the ethics involved would be the deeper opportunity for both artist and viewer.</p>

<p>Though in my opinion many ethical questions are up to us as individuals, many are definitely not ultimately between the person and his or her conscience. As a member of a civilized society, I may very well be affected by someone's actions (even when they aren't specifically or primarily directed at me) and I and others have every right to insist upon certain behaviors, the perpetrator's conscience be damned. If you are abusing a child, let's say you're a priest, and you think you're holy enough to be above the laws and morals that most people adhere to, and so your conscience allows you to perform these vile acts and then to cover them up and help others cover them up, I have a <em>right</em> and an <em>obligation</em> to stop you, regardless of whether you're consistent in your thinking and regardless of what cultural excuse you provide.</p>

<p>Yes. There are many actions that are perceived differently in different cultures and it's important to be mindful and respectful of those differences, depending on the acts. But I don't have to respect someone's actions because their culture tells them it's OK. And I can work to stop those actions. Those whose culture tells them it's OK to beat women into subservience or to keep their faces hidden or to enslave children are wrong. There may not be much I can or would do about it, but if I didn't make that judgment, I couldn't live with myself. I understand that others may have a different way of viewing women and children. And I understand they don't see it as wrong. I do. And I'm glad I do. Live and let live carries us to many good places. And it can be taken way too far.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred-</p>

<p>The use of babies and young children in advertising, where their behaviour is induced and artificial to please adults in some facile manner is to me entirely unethical. The child actors are not aware of what they are doing or at least not aware of the reasons and the issues. Some, not me, will consider that simply a matter of taste. They may be the same who are horrified at seeing a new born baby in its admittedlty not prettiest of moments and consider that an unethical photograph. When I mentioned that I think we should act accordingto our own sense of ethics, it is because of the erosion I see in the ethics of the community, not as a question of laissez-faire. The individual action is to support what might be disappearing from community behaviour (I am speaking for myself here and my experience; in a different sense, when homosexualism was not accepted by the society, many of us refused that so-called ethical stance of non-homosexual persons - that was going against a prevailing ethic, but as history shows now, fully justified; there are many examples where personal ethic does not follow exactly that of one's society).</p>

<p>The way politicians are treated in the US in TV campaign negative advertising is often to my mind highly unethical and unfortunately beginning to creep into Canada, primarily by our national conservative party. It is being fought strongly by many here, as it represents an unethical manner of discussing your opponent. That may be the ethical reaction of our small and relatively unimportant society, but it is one I can readily embrace. When I see corruption in our government (a present controversy is playing out between the public and the apparent collusion between government and big trade unions in regard to hiring at major hydro-electric sites) I subscribe entirely to the ethics of proper business conduct and fairness.</p>

<p>The point that for me is important is the apparent conundrum between taste and ethics, not in everyday life where I see the issues as being more clearcut, but in art and photography, where the independence of the artist sometimes works negatively to ignore ethical issues. In Lacking a formal deontology, that is where I see things as being more centered on the individual response in determining what is or is not ethical. As I think I mentioned earlier, my feelings are that one has to apply one's general ethical codes and the ethical codes of one's society (if one accepts them) as a basis for developing one related to photography. The one related to photography, in the acknowledged absence of a deontology for that activity (which is OK by me, as independence of artistic action is important, but still requires justification when made public), is what each person and each person's moral values will dictate, complemented by the overall ethical values. The result is not a laissez-faire approach, but one of constructing the guidelines for one's actions. Letting taste replace ethics is not palatable in my opinion, and I believe we agree on that point.</p>

[mizore]

<p>I used to live near the Bowery and saw school children being toured through with "I Give a Damn" buttons on and shocked and horrified looks on their faces. The poor, as one poor person said to the Charlotte City Council, are jobs for the middle class, black and white. If you've gone down to the Bowery to look, for whatever reason, you might as well shoot photographs, but those photographs are about the photographer, not the Bowery (I don't remember seeing any shots of a bum confronting an artist, but that particular interaction was fairly common as the artists took over the space).</p>

<p>What I object to about Goldin is that the scenes are contrived and aimed at the middle class sentimentalists no less than the organizers of the bus loads of middle class children thought that seeing the Bowery would be meaningful to the children (well, yeah, they became the most conservative kids ever in US history). There's a nasty sort of sensationalism to them, and in that, they're not far removed from Andrew Wyeth's whorish titles that appealed to the sentimentality of his buyers. They're not about the photograph or the painting; they're about the setting and the complexities of marketing and sentimentalities of various kinds.</p>

<p>I'm finding that I don't want to take pictures that play with fashionable morbidness, or write fiction that plays with that. I think the world is light and darkness, and the light isn't always as sentimental as the dark, though light-drive sentimentality is more obvious than the dark driven sentimentality (when it's about your feelings rather than the esthetic pleasure of the piece).</p>

<p>I have things I won't photograph: people who are falling while climbing, Amish, anyone who really doesn't want to be photographed (unless they piss me off by trying to tell me what I should be photographing instead of them).</p>

<p>I have kinds of photographs I think it's wrong to do too many of -- either the sentimentality of the dark or light, when the photograph is a trigger for self-regard rather than sublimation of ego, the forgetting of self in the work, either as the performer or as the audience. The sentimentality of the light is the happy snaps. The sentimentality of the dark is no longer obvious tear jerkers these days.</p>

<p>My morals with art are based on what I believe about art. And I tend to agree with Faulkner that a good novel is worth any number of grandmothers, but we're in an age reeking of various forms of sentimentality, not all of which are limited to happy snaps, and Faulkner, after <em>Satorius</em> provided a sentimental and sensationalized view of the South for primarily Northern consumers.</p>

<p>Julie, I find the first African photograph (two children with all the white photographers) horrifying and nasty, even more than I found people who came to my rural county and skipped by twelve brick ranch houses to photograph some colorfully shabby wooden house with peeling paint. I'm sure all of them could have found that closer to home (I've been thinking of photographing a shabby house near Middleburg, but in some ways, it's too obvious even there).</p>

<p>If a photograph needs a text to explain it, chances are good that it's dabbling in some form of sentimentality (cultivating the self-image of the viewer rather than freeing the viewer from self for a moment).</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Rebecca</strong>, I'd give up all of Faulkner's novels and then some for one day with my grandmother.</p>

<p>If that makes me sentimental, then lay it on me. I'll bathe in it.</p>

<p>I love sentimentality when it's well done.</p>

<p>Movie: <em>It's a Wonderful Life.</em></p>

<p>Song: <em>Sentimental Journey.</em></p>

<p>Photograph: <em>V-J Day in Times Square.</em></p>

<p>Many of Tchaikovsky's works were denigrated as sentimental. Glad we got over the denigrating. They're still sentimental . . . and wonderful.</p>

<p>Cheap sentimentality is one thing. Grandmothers and Tchaikovsky are another. I guess even Faulkner could be an ass . . . or maybe he just had a really nasty grandma.</p>

[mizore]

<p>Grandmothers die anyway, not that Faulkner wasn't a bit of a jerk.</p>

<p>Sentimentality is always about self-back-patting. It means the work isn't engaging enough to keep you from doing that. I see <i>V-J Day in Time Square</i> differently than men do, I suspect. I don't think I've ever seen <i>It's a Wonderful Life</i>.</p>

<p>I spent Easter photographing a couple and their dogs for gas money, food, and $200, and the photos are probably sentimental enough.</p>

<p>When my siblings praise my mom, they're living up to public standards about how people should act toward their mothers and the dead. None of us actually cried at her memorial service or at the interment of some of her ashes later. I felt sorry for her (her childhood was awful), but she never knew I existed in any real sort of way, and I don't think I ever had a meaningful adult conversation with her (I have had those with my father).</p>

<p>It's that "If I like/think/do this, I'm a good person" that is problematic. Art isn't about morals intrinsically (<i>Triumph of the Will</i> and <i>The Conformist</i> both are excellent, but they don't share the same moral universe at all). As a person, I have morals, but not as an artist. The guy commenting that writers were all jerks may have been on to something. Art is orthogonal to being a nice person.<br>

Faulkner's daughter said he started being a nice person when he quit writing.</p><div></div>

[felixg]

<p>Rebecca says that "art is orthogonal to being a nice person" ... I prefer the form I used earlier, "art is amoral".<br>

The trade off between good novels and grandmothers is an example. I am absolutely with Fred: any number of great novels do not justify the selling of one grandmother, mine or anyone else's. However, it's a grim fact that most of what is generally lauded as "great art" is produced by people who are less than great human beings – because the nice people are distracted more often by human calls than those who are single minded enough to stick with the call of art. In other words, there is a positive correlation (but no necessary deterministic linkage) between art and being a less than nice person.<br>

I dislike sentimentality, but not as a primary judgement ... my dislike is really for lack of honesty. The two things too often arrive together, once again correlated but not deterministically linked.<br>

To Wouter's question about photography's tendency to objectify: having made the statement on the wing, I'm now thinking through a reply and will return with (I hope) something coherent! :-)</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Hey, that's Liber Novus in that <em>Amy and Ursa</em> pic, I wouldn't have dared to keep a doggie so close to it, what if the dog smells and starts licking one of the pages suddenly...the thought alone makes me shiver.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Rebecca - "</strong>It's that "If I like/think/do this, I'm a good person" that is problematic."</p>

<p> It's more complicated than that. It's about identity and cultivating oneself. There's things I want and don't want to be, and it goes well beyond the elementally simple "good person".</p>

<p><strong>RB- "</strong>In other words, there is a positive correlation (but no necessary deterministic linkage) between art and being a less than nice person." and " Art is orthogonal to being a nice person." <strong> </strong></p>

<p> It's not just art, it's <em>any</em> endeavor where the practitioner pushes him/herself to the limit. I mean from mothers obsessed with their precious snowflakes, to Einstein. Everything and everyone around them suffers. The first thing the Buddha did when embarking on the search for Enlightenment was to ditch his new family. J.C. tells the young man who wants to follow him to leave his family behind. Did that make them non 'nice guys' ?</p>

<p>Without obsession and creativity, a lot of things don't happen.</p>

<p> Art has no intrinsic ethics (and in my view, it shouldn't), but the individuals who make it do.</p>

<p> As long as we're throwing low sparks strutting on the dark side, there's the (possibly deterministic) link between mental illness and creativity (note I did not say 'art'). No, not outright psychosis, but a little headway in that spectrum seems to go with the territory. It, too, is not often interpreted as "nice".</p>

<p>Ps. I love the story of Faulkner's stint as a mailman.</p>

<p> </p>